I am developing a device that takes a picture and transfers that picture to desktop computer receiver wirelessly through radio waves. On the receiver end, I am using C and fwrite() to rebuild the image file sent by split packets of data. Receiving a packet executes:
fwrite(&data[3], size, 1, filename);
data[3] is an unsigned 8 bit integer, data type u08.
I confirm that wired file transfer works. If the transmitter and receiver are directly connected, there is no problem.
However, the radio signal is not strong enough to guarantee that all packets will be received. In my testing, lost in transmission packets are common. If even one packet is lost, the image file becomes corrupt. Received rate is roughly 85%.
Every packet is numbered. If the received packet number is greater than the expected packet number, then the receiver knows that a packet has been dropped.
My solution is to loop and replace missing packets with a default packet while incrementing the expected packet number counter. Basically, I plan to fill lost pixels with black pixels, using the received packets to create the most completely picture possible. I do not know how to do this. I tried simply setting data[3] to 0 if the received packet number and expected packet number do not match up, but this did not work.
I welcome other proposed solutions.
U have not mentioned the image format. If you are sending crude RGB image then setting to zero thing should work but if you are playing with compressed images like jpeg and you have lost the header packets having information about block sizes or tables used for entropy encoding there is no way to get the image back.
Related
When will a TCP packet be fragmented at the application layer? When a TCP packet is sent from an application, will the recipient at the application layer ever receive the packet in two or more packets? If so, what conditions cause the packet to be divided. It seems like a packet won't be fragmented until it reaches the Ethernet (at the network layer) limit of 1500 bytes. But, that fragmentation will be transparent to the recipient at the application layer since the network layer will reassemble the fragments before sending the packet up to the next layer, right?
It will be split when it hits a network device with a lower MTU than the packet's size. Most ethernet devices are 1500, but it can often be smaller, like 1492 if that ethernet is going over PPPoE (DSL) because of the extra routing information, even lower if a second layer is added like Windows Internet Connection Sharing. And dialup is normally 576!
In general though you should remember that TCP is not a packet protocol. It uses packets at the lowest level to transmit over IP, but as far as the interface for any TCP stack is concerned, it is a stream protocol and has no requirement to provide you with a 1:1 relationship to the physical packets sent or received (for example most stacks will hold messages until a certain period of time has expired, or there are enough messages to maximize the size of the IP packet for the given MTU)
As an example if you sent two "packets" (call your send function twice), the receiving program might only receive 1 "packet" (the receiving TCP stack might combine them together). If you are implimenting a message type protocol over TCP, you should include a header at the beginning of each message (or some other header/footer mechansim) so that the receiving side can split the TCP stream back into individual messages, either when a message is received in two parts, or when several messages are received as a chunk.
Fragmentation should be transparent to a TCP application. Keep in mind that TCP is a stream protocol: you get a stream of data, not packets! If you are building your application based on the idea of complete data packets then you will have problems unless you add an abstraction layer to assemble whole packets from the stream and then pass the packets up to the application.
The question makes an assumption that is not true -- TCP does not deliver packets to its endpoints, rather, it sends a stream of bytes (octets). If an application writes two strings into TCP, it may be delivered as one string on the other end; likewise, one string may be delivered as two (or more) strings on the other end.
RFC 793, Section 1.5:
"The TCP is able to transfer a
continuous stream of octets in each
direction between its users by
packaging some number of octets into
segments for transmission through the
internet system."
The key words being continuous stream of octets (bytes).
RFC 793, Section 2.8:
"There is no necessary relationship
between push functions and segment
boundaries. The data in any particular
segment may be the result of a single
SEND call, in whole or part, or of
multiple SEND calls."
The entirety of section 2.8 is relevant.
At the application layer there are any number of reasons why the whole 1500 bytes may not show up one read. Various factors in the internal operating system and TCP stack may cause the application to get some bytes in one read call, and some in the next. Yes, the TCP stack has to re-assemble the packet before sending it up, but that doesn't mean your app is going to get it all in one shot (it is LIKELY will get it in one read, but it's not GUARANTEED to get it in one read).
TCP tries to guarantee in-order delivery of bytes, with error checking, automatic re-sends, etc happening behind your back. Think of it as a pipe at the app layer and don't get too bogged down in how the stack actually sends it over the network.
This page is a good source of information about some of the issues that others have brought up, namely the need for data encapsulation on an application protocol by application protocol basis Not quite authoritative in the sense you describe but it has examples and is sourced to some pretty big names in network programming.
If a packet exceeds the maximum MTU of a network device it will be broken up into multiple packets. (Note most equipment is set to 1500 bytes, but this is not a necessity.)
The reconstruction of the packet should be entirely transparent to the applications.
Different network segments can have different MTU values. In that case fragmentation can occur. For more information see TCP Maximum segment size
This (de)fragmentation happens in the TCP layer. In the application layer there are no more packets. TCP presents a contiguous data stream to the application.
A the "application layer" a TCP packet (well, segment really; TCP at its own layer doesn't know from packets) is never fragmented, since it doesn't exist. The application layer is where you see the data as a stream of bytes, delivered reliably and in order.
If you're thinking about it otherwise, you're probably approaching something in the wrong way. However, this is not to say that there might not be a layer above this, say, a sequence of messages delivered over this reliable, in-order bytestream.
Correct - the most informative way to see this is using Wireshark, an invaluable tool. Take the time to figure it out - has saved me several times, and gives a good reality check
If a 3000 byte packet enters an Ethernet network with a default MTU size of 1500 (for ethernet), it will be fragmented into two packets of each 1500 bytes in length. That is the only time I can think of.
Wireshark is your best bet for checking this. I have been using it for a while and am totally impressed
I want to send variable sized packets between 2 linux OSes over an internal network. The packet is variable sized and its length and CRC are indicated in the header which is also sent along with the packet. Something roughly like-
struct hdr {
uint32 crc;
uint32 dataSize;
void *data;
};
I'm using CRC at the application layer to overcome the inherent limitation of TCP checksums
The problem I have is, there is a chance that the dataSize field itself is corrupted, in which case, I dont know where the next packet starts? Cos at the reciver, when I read the socket buffer, I read n such packets next to one another. So dataSize is the only way I can get to the next packet correctly.
Some ideas I have is to-
Restart the connection if a CRC mismatch occurs.
Aggregate X such packets into one big packet of fixed size and discard the big packet if any CRC error is detected. The big packet is to make sure we lose <= sizeof of one packet in case of errors
Any other ideas for these variable sized packets?
Since TCP is stream based, data length is the generally used way to extract one full message for processing at the application. If you believe that the length byte itself is wrong for some reason, there is not much we can do except discard the packet,"flush" the connection and expect that the sender and receiver would re-sync. But the best is to disconnect the line unless, there is a protocol at the application layer to get to re-sync the connection.
Another method other than length bytes would be to use markers. Start-of-Message and End-of-Message. Application when encountering Start-of-Message should start collecting data until End-of-Message byte is received and then further process the message. This requires that the message escapes the markers appropriately.
I think that you are dealing with second order error possibilities, when major risk is somewhere else.
When we used serial line transmissions, errors were frequent (one or two every several kBytes). We used good old Kermit with a CRC and a packet size of about 100 bytes and that was enough: I encountered many times a failed transfer because the line went off, but never a correct transfer with a bad file.
With current networks, unless you have very very poor lines, the hardware level is not that bad, and anyway the level 2 data link layer already has a checksum to control that each packet was not modified between 2 nodes. HDLC is commonly used at that level and it uses normaly a CRC16 or CRC32 checksum which is a very correct checksum.
So the checksum as TCP level is not meant to detect random errors in the byte stream, but simply as a last defense line for unexpected errors, for exemple if a router gets mad because of an electrical shock and sends full garbage. I do not have any statistical data on it, but I am pretty sure that the number of errors reaching the TCP level is already very very low. Said differently, do not worry about that: unless you are dealing with highly sensitive data - and in that case I would prefere to have two different channels, former for data, latter for a global checksum - TCP/IP is enough.
That being said, adding a control at the application level as an ultime defense is perfectly acceptable. It will only process the errors that could have been undetected at data link and TCP level, or more probably errors in the peer application (who wrote it and how was it tested?). So the probability to get an error is low enough to use a very rough recovery procedure:
close the connection
open a new one
restart after last packet correctly exchanged (if it makes sense) or simply continue sending new packets if you can
But the risk is much higher to get a physical disconnection, or a power outage anywhere in the network, not speaking in a flaw in application level implementations...
And do not forget to fully specify the byte order and the size of the crc and datasize...
I'm getting trouble with packet segmentation. I've already read from many sources about GSO, which is a generalized way for segmenting a packet with size greater than the Ethernet MTU (1500 B). However, I have not found an answer for doubts that I have in mind.
If we add a new set of bytes (ex. a new header by the name 'NH') between L2 and L3 layer, the kernel must be able to pass through NH and adjust sk_buff pointer to the beginning of the L3 to offload the packet according to the 'policy' of the L3 protocol type (ex. IPv4 fragmentation). My thoughts were to modify skb_network_protocol() function. This function, if I'm not wrong, enables skb_mac_gso_segment() to properly call GSO function for different types of L3 protocol. However, I'm not being able to segment my packets properly.
I have a kernel module that forwards packets through the network (OVS, Open vSwitch). On the tests which I've been running (h1 --ping-- h2), the host generates large ICMP packets and then sends packets which are less or equal than MTU size. Those packets are received by the first switch which attaches the new header NH, so if a packet had 1500B, it becomes 1500B + NH length. Here is the problem, the switch has already received a fragmented packet from the host, and the switch adds more bytes in the packet (kind of VLAN does).
Therefore, at first, I tried to ping large packets, but it didn't work. In OVS, before calling dev_queue_xmit(), a packet can be segmented by calling skb_gso_segment(). However, the packet needs to go through a condition checked by netif_needs_gso(). But I'm not sure if I have to use skb_gso_segment() to properly segment the packet.
I also noticed that, for the needs_gso_segment() function be true, skb_shinfo(skb)->gso_size have to be true. However, gso_size has always zero value for all the received packets. So, I made a test by attributing a random value to gso_size (ex. 1448B). Now, on my tests, I was able to ping from h1 to h2, but the first 2 packets were lost. On another test, TCP had a extremely poor performance. And since then, I've been getting a kernel warning: "[ 5212.694418] [c1642e50] ? skb_warn_bad_offload+0xd0/0xd8
"
For small packets (< MTU) I got no trouble and ping works fine. TCP works fine, but for small window size.
Someone has any idea for what's happening? Should I always use GSO when I get large packets? Is it possible to fragment a fragmented IPv4 packets?
As the new header lies between L2 and L3, I guess the enlargement of a IPv4 packet due to the additional header, is similar to what happens with VLAN. How VLAN can handle the segmentation problem?
Thanks in advance,
I have a client and a server, where server sends the audio data by RTP packets encapsulated inside UDP. Client receives the packets. As UDP has no flow control, client checks for the sequence number of the packet and rearranges them if they come out of order.
My question here is, I see client never receives packet with some sequence number, as show below in the wireshark -
If this is the case, when i play the audio at client side, it is distorted(obvious). How do i avoid it? What factors effect these? Should i set the socket buffer size to a large value?
Appreciate reply in advance.
EDIT 1: This issue is on QNX platform and not on Linux.
I observed the output of "netstat -p udp" to see if that gives any hint about why packets are getting dropped on QNX and not on Linux.
QNX:
SOCK=/dev/d_usb3/ netstat -p udp
udp:
8673 datagrams received
0 with incomplete header
60 with bad data length field
0 with bad checksum
0 dropped due to no socket
2 broadcast/multicast datagrams dropped due to no socket
0 dropped due to full socket buffers
8611 delivered
8592 PCB hash misses
On Linux I see netstat shows no packet drops with the same server and same audio!
Any leads? Why this might be? Driver issue? Networking stack?
You need to specify how you are handling lost packets in your client.
If you lose packets, that means you have missing data in your audio stream. So your client has to "do something" where it is missing data. Some options are
- play silence (makes a cracking noise due to sharp envelop to 0)
- fade to silence
- estimate waveform by examining adjacent data
- play noise
You play cannot misalign packets or play them with missing packets. For example, suppose you you get packet 1,2,3,4 and 6. You are missing packet 5. You cannot play packet 4 then play packet 6. Something has to happen to fill the space of packet 5.
See this post for more info.
I'm writing a program with a client and a server I almost achieved it.
At the moment I can execute the server on a port. The client in the same port with the IP adress and the name of the .wav file that I want to read.
Now what I'd like to do is making a timeout between each sendto() so that the client receives the packet and read them well. without that the client receives many packets at once and it losts many of them.
So could someone tell me how it works in UDP, and how to do that ?
making a timeout between each sendto()
I believe that you are asking how to put a small delay between each sendto(). If you open raw wav file and send bytes, there is a good chance that the data will be getting to the client much faster than it can play it. If you want to stream data at the same rate as it is played, send data in chunks, then let the client request the next chunk.
If that is not an option, you can send a chunk of data (i.e. 20ms). Then let the thread sleep for a little less than 20ms then send the next chunk. Sleeps are kind of a hack. Some sort of audio callback would be best on the server. Bottom line is that your client buffer has to be big enough to consume the the amount of data your server is sending.
without that the client receives many packets at once and it losts many of them
I believe that you are asking how to deal with the variety of packet inter arrival rates and the packet losses and out of order packets received. It sounds like you were just sending packets at too fast a rate that your client could handle. You might need a larger buffer on the client.
In any case, with UDP/IP, you have the following scenarios
lost packets
packets arriving out of order
packets arriving in bursts: (each packet will not arrive exactly X ms apart)
To deal with this, you have to minimally have what is know as a dejitter buffer. This is a buffer that collects packets as they arrive and inserts them typically in a ring buffer. The buffer will have to be large enough to buffer up packets that your server is sending. Your client is potentially consuming the packets from the buffer slower than the server is sending them (or vice versa). In order to get packets in the right order and deal with losses, you have to detect it. You can detect losses and out of order arrivals by simply numbering each packet that is sent. As packets arrive you can put them into the buffer into the correct location. If a packet is lost, you need to deal with that with some sort of loss concealment (playing silence, estimating the lost packet, etc.) which is beyond the scope of this question,
The RTP protocol is designed for streaming and is an application protocol that work over UDP.
Since you're using UDP, which is connectionless, you don't really have a way to control the flow of packets unless you implement some kind of acknowledgement mechanism... at which point you might as well be using TCP because it already has that built in.
Although I don't have much experience in network programming, this looks a bit more complicated than it might seem at first glance. So UDP is connectionless. That speeds things up a lot, but there is a price to pay -- off the top of my head, packets can get lost or arrive out of order.
Those are situations you need to handle on the client end. Your client needs to be designed so that it accepts packets as they arrive at an arbitrary rate, skips over those that fail to arrive within a certain time (for live streaming, for buffered that doesn't matter) and takes order into consideration, which means that each packet needs to contain information about its place relative to previous packets.